Saturday, December 8, 2007
Sarah Wheaton reports in the NY Times:
Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential candidate, released a plan for tougher immigration enforcement and border security yesterday, pledging to complete a border fence between the United States and Mexico by July 2010 and ruling out a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants unless they returned first to their country of origin.
Mr. Huckabee has taken heat in recent weeks from his rivals for the Republican nomination, especially after his impassioned defense at a Nov. 28 debate of merit scholarships to children of illegal immigrants while he was governor of Arkansas. In that debate, he responded to attacks on his immigration record by saying, “We’re a better country than to punish children for what their parents did.”
In the proposal he released yesterday, Mr. Huckabee did not address whether he still supported such benefits for illegal immigrants. But in detailing his plan for stepped-up enforcement, he said immigrants who failed to register within 120 days and then leave the country would be deported and barred from re-entry for 10 years.
In addition to completing the fence and installing an “interlocking” camera surveillance system on the Mexican border, he said he would increase the number of Border Patrol agents. Employers who hire illegal immigrants would also be subject to penalties under his proposal. Click here for the full article.
A crackdown by scores of U.S. states and municipalities on undocumented immigration threatens the competitiveness of businesses across the country, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report said on Friday. For the N.Y. Times summary of the report, click here.
BOB HERBERT has a column critical of a question from a NPR moderator (Steve Inskeep) in a recent presidential debate. Inskeep asked the Democratic candidates whether American citizens have an obligation to turn in people they suspect are undocumented immigrants.
For a transcript of the NPR debate, which includes much discussion about immigration, click here.
DHS Medical Treatment of Immigrant Detainees with HIV/AIDS Substandard, Human Rights Watch Report Concludes
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security provides inadequate care and treatment of immigrant detainees with HIV/AIDS, according to a new survey by a civil rights group that was prompted by the July death of a transgender inmate. Human Rights Watch issued a 71-page report Friday to encourage the government to improve its screening and ongoing treatment of immigrant detainees with HIV/AIDS. The report cocludes that DHS should upgrade its care and treatment of immigrant detainees with HIV. The organization charged that the agency has failed to meet its obligations to and respect the rights of its detainees with HIV. It fails to monitor the appropriate treatment of detainees with HIV, or even how many have HIV, and has substandard policies and procedures for providing life-saving care.
Last summer, after comprehensive immigration reform failed in Congress, Arizona passed its own employer sanctions law. A federal judge late yesterday tossed out the lawsuit challenging Arizona's employer-sanctions law, setting the stage for a quick second round of legal action before Jan. 1, when the law is set to take effect. U.S. District Judge Neil Wake ruled that the business and Latino groups incorrectly sued the governor and the state attorney general but instead should have brought their complaint against the 15 county attorneys charged with enforcing the law. The judge also suggested that the lawsuit was premature because there is no evidence anyone has been harmed.
Expect a quick appeal with the Ninth Circuit! And, since the case was dismissed without prejudice, it can always be refiled with an amended complaint.
For a news story on the dismissal, click here.
For a copy of the order, Download 84_findings_of_fact_conclusion_of_law_and_order.pdf
Friday, December 7, 2007
Travelers Reminded of New Document Requirements Beginning January 31, 2008
Office of the Press Secretary
Department of State: 202-647-2492
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) remind the traveling public that as of Jan. 31, 2008, all adult travelers will be required to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, and proof of identity, such as a driver's license, when entering the United States through land and sea ports of entry. DHS will be issuing a notice in the Federal Register formally announcing the change.
This change is a necessary step to prepare travelers and ease the transition to the future requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). WHTI proposes to establish documentation requirements for travelers entering the United States who were previously exempt, including citizens of the U.S., Canada, and Bermuda. As recommended by the 9/11 Commission, Congress enacted WHTI in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. WHTI will result in both enhanced security and increased facilitation across the border once implemented. During this transition, DHS and the Department of State are working diligently to minimize the impact on legitimate trade and travel.
Currently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers may accept oral declarations of citizenship from U.S. and Canadian citizens seeking entry into the United States through a land or sea border. However, as of January 31, 2008:
Oral declarations of citizenship alone will no longer be accepted
U.S. and Canadian citizens ages 19 and older will need to present a government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license, along with proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or naturalization certificate
Children ages 18 and under will only be required to present proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate
Passports and trusted traveler program cards - NEXUS, SENTRI and FAST - will continue to be accepted for cross-border travel
All existing nonimmigrant visa and passport requirements will remain in effect and will not be altered by this change.
DOS reminds the public that the current turnaround time for a passport is four to six weeks, so Americans planning international travel may wish to apply now. For information on obtaining a U.S. Passport visit www.travel.state.gov or call 1-877-487-2778. Specific documentation requirements for land, sea and air travel may be found at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/ready_set_go/. To learn more about NEXUS, SENTRI and FAST, visit www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/trusted_traveler/.
Tatia L. Gordon-Troy, Esq., Director of American Immigration lawyers Association Publications wants all you academics to be aware of the pricing arrangements for AILA publications. AILA produces some top notch immigration law materials. Here is a list of pubs. Download AILA
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on December 6 accusing an immigration judge of "badgering" an immigrant and said that the judge had, in effect, forced the immigrant to proceed without a lawyer. The three-judge panel, in an opinion by Judge Harry Pregerson (no stranger to this blog), ruled unanimously that the noncitizen, who contends that deportation would lead to "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" for his three U.S.-born sons, should have a second chance at fighting deportation. The panel also criticized the immigrant's former counsel and referred to the immigrant as the victim of notarios, unlicensed legal aides who "prey on uneducated immigrants."
Follow the link above to find the case -- 12/06/07 05-70163 A MENDOZA-MAZARIEGOS V MUKASEY. The relatively lengthy (more than one hour) -- and very interesting and revealing -- oral argument in the case, which includes arguments from a pro bono amicus appointed by the court, can be found here. (Thanks for the assist on this from Cappy White). For the L.A. Times story on the case, click here.
Despite what some restrictionist advocates would suggest, the polls often make it hard to figure where Americans stand on immigration. Here is the latest. One-third of Americans want to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare, to undocumented immigrants, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found. Still, a strong bipartisan majority -- 60% -- favors allowing undocumented immigrants who have not committed crimes to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements.
In "Educational Benefits for Illegal Immigrants Are a Hot Presidential-Campaign Topic,” the Chronicle of Higher Education (December 7, 2007) reports on the questions of undocumented immigrant access to education have ignited fierce debate in the presidential campaign, especially among the Republican contenders.
Residents of Southern California -- including immigrants -- were devasted by wildfires last month. As the smoke cleared after the fires, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, Immigrant Rights Consortium, and Justice Overcoming Boundaries released a report revealing patterns of neglect and instances of abuse of some of the area's most vulnerable populations--especially Latino immigrants and the indigent--in the rescue and relief efforts.
Julia Preston of the N.Y. Times reports thatm according to a report issued by the Pew Hispanic Center, gains made by Republicans among Hispanic voters in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 have been erased over the past year, with Hispanics returning to earlier levels of strong preference for the Democratic Party. The survey pointed to “a number of potentially worrisome early signs” for the Republicans among Hispanic voters in the 2008 presidential race. Immigration has become a more important issue for Hispanics than it was in 2004, the Pew poll showed, and far more registered Latino voters now say that the Democrats are doing a better job on illegal immigration than the Republicans. The number of Hispanics eligible to vote is at 18.2 million, but the survey suggests that Latino voters could become a strategic swing vote in several states — including Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Nevada — that President Bush carried by narrow margins in 2004.
Anthony James Esposito (born April 23, 1943 in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario) is a retired professional ice hockey goaltender. Esposito is considered one of the pioneers of the now popular butterfly style and one of the best goaltenders in National Hockey League history.
Esposito grew up Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario with his brother, fellow future NHL star Phil Esposito. He played college hockey for Michigan Tech University. Esposito was a three-time first-team All-America selection and a driving force behind the Huskies winning the 1964-65 NCAA Championship.
Esposito first played pro for the Montreal Canadiens in the 1968-69 season. A famous game against the Boston Bruins, led by his brother Phil, ended in a 2-2 tie, in which Phil scored both goals for Boston. The next year the Chicago Blackhawks claimed Tony from Montreal on waivers. Esposito had a spectacular season, setting a modern day NHL record with 15 shutouts. He won both the Calder Trophy and the Vezina Trophy and made the First All-Star Team, as well as being runner-up for the Hart Memorial Trophy. The next year, Tony Esposito again proved to be one of the league's best goalies and helped Chicago finish first in the NHL's West division. He took the Blackhawks to the Stanley Cup finals, but they lost to Montreal.
Tony Esposito played for Team Canada in the 1972 Summit Series. He was the first goalie to earn a win against the Soviets. In 1973 the Blackhawks again lost to Montreal in the Stanley Cup finals. The next several years, as Montreal and Philadelphia dominated the league, Esposito and the Black Hawks suffered through a series of mediocre seasons. In 1980 he returned to the All Star First Team after posting six shutouts.
In 1981, Tony Esposition became a U.S. citizen and played for Team USA in the 1981 Canada Cup (he had previously represented Canada at the 1977 Ice Hockey World Championship tournament).
Esposito retired from professional play in 1985 and was named to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1988. The Chicago Blackhawks have retired his number 35.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
NPR did another nice story year following up on raids about a year ago when immigration agents arrested more than 1,200 illegal workers at Swift meat-packing plants in six states. Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter said last summer that the day after the raids, Americans were lined up to get their $18-an-hour jobs back. In reality, the meat-packing plants pay an average of $11-12 — and no one is lining up to work there. Many plants, even those that were not raided, must still recruit heavily for legal workers. Where are they looking? Puerto Rico, an island filled with U.S. citizens.
One of the unfortunate side effects of increased border enforcement over the last 20 years have been increased reports of human trafficking and slavery. For "Human Trafficking in California: A Report of the California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery (CA ACTS) Task Force," click here.
As I have mentioned in previous updates, Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the No-Match Appeal Release Date: December 5, 2007
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the injunction against the No-Match Rule in San Francisco, Calif.
I believe that the No-Match Rule is a major step forward in preventing employment of illegal migrants. Contrary to the ACLU's incorrect statements, the rule is not harmful to legal workers. DHS is not abandoning it.
Employers receive a No-Match letter from the Social Security Administration when an employee's name does not match the social security number it has on file. Sometimes there is an innocent explanation for this discrepancy, such as a clerical error. But sometimes the discrepancy reflects the fact that the employee in question is an illegal alien. When employers receive such No-Match letters, they are on notice that the employees in question may not be authorized to work.
Under our No-Match Rule, no employer should terminate an employee based upon a no-match letter alone. But no employer should ignore such a letter or the discrepancy it reveals. The No-Match Rule gives employers and employees 90 days - a full three months - to correct the discrepancy.
If the mismatch is a clerical error, that is a good opportunity to correct the mistake. When the mismatch shows fraud, however, appropriate steps should be taken. Businesses that follow the procedures in the rule will have a safe harbor from enforcement action. Those that ignore no-match letters place themselves at obvious risk and invite suspicion that they are knowingly employing workers who are here illegally.
Far from abandoning the No-Match Rule, we are pressing ahead by taking the district court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same time, we will soon issue a supplement to the rule that specifically addresses the three grounds on which the district court based its injunction. By pursuing these two paths simultaneously, my aim is to get a resolution as quickly as possible so we can move the No-Match Rule forward and provide honest employers with the guidance they need.
The ACLU's lawsuit has put this vital protection on hold. That is bad for immigration enforcement and bad for America's law-abiding employers and their legal workers. The only real beneficiaries of the ACLU's strategy are employers who would rather close their eyes to cheap and profitable illegal labor than obey the laws of our country.
UPDATE: The ACLU's response.
Here is a letter with details about the Eighth Biennial Immigration Law Teachers Workshop, which as previously announced will take place in Miami, Florida, on May 1-3, 2008. Download MiamiImmLawTeachersWorkshop2008FirstLetterDec2007.pdf Also attached is a works-in-progress questionnaire for those interested in submitting a work-in-progress for discussion and/or interested in being a commentator on a work-in-progress. Download MiamiImmigrationLawWorkshop2008WIPQuestionnaire.doc
In addition, the Immigration Law section program at the AALS Annual Meeting in New York is on "Alive at 25?: The Many Meanings of Plyler v. Doe." the program is on Friday, January 4, 2008, at 4:00 to 5:45 pm., at the Hilton New York. Panelists are Linda Bosniak (Rutgers-Camden), Douglas Massey (Princeton), Michael Olivas (Houston), and Peter Schuck (Yale).
The National Immigration Forum has begun the process of looking for a new Executive Director after the announcement by Frank Sharry that he intends to leave the Forum once a new Executive Director is hired. The Forum has retained an executive search firm, Isaacson, Miller, that is working with an ad hoc Search Committee of our Board of Directors. After a series of interviews with the Board, staff, and others who have worked closely with the Forum, Isaacson, Miller has written a document that includes background on the Forum, challenges a new Executive Director will face at this moment in the movement’s history, and a list of desired qualifications and experience.
To obtain the complete document, or to inquire about the job, send an e-mail to Gina Flores of Isaacson, Miller at firstname.lastname@example.org. You can also contact the search team at the address listed below. Please feel free to share this announcement with those you think might be interested.
Pasted here is a short summary of the job posting that you can also find on the Web site of Isaacson, Miller. We will keep you posted as the Forum’s transition proceeds.
Job Description Summary
The National Immigration Forum (the Forum), founded in 1982, seeks a new Executive Director. Headquartered in Washington, DC, this not-for-profit organization is one of the leading immigrant advocacy organizations in the country. Working with national and local advocacy groups, business organizations, and think tanks, the Forum “serves as a table” at which a diverse range of organizations interested in immigration reform can meet and develop strategy. In addition to being an effective convener, the Forum leads programs focusing on promoting pro-immigrant policy reforms, increasing effective communications on immigration issues, defending due process and immigrants’ rights, engaging in administrative advocacy with the Department of Homeland Security, and advancing integration-related activities.
The next Executive Director will join a highly respected organization with a legacy of championing broad immigration reform. The ideal candidate will have an established reputation in the field of immigration, proven success in building a multi-dimensional coalition, as well as a track record in sound managerial and administrative oversight. The Forum seeks a leader with vision and passion for the issue that will inspire the Board of Directors, staff, and associated organizations towards a short- and long-term strategic plan. The Executive Director reports to the Board of Directors and oversees a 10-person staff and a budget of $2 million. For additional information on the Forum, visit its website at www.immigrationforum.org.
The National Immigration Forum is an equal opportunity employer committed to inclusive hiring and dedicated to diversity in its work and staff. Minorities, immigrants, and refugees are strongly encouraged to apply. Nominations and applications, including a resume and a substantive cover letter responding to the challenges outlined above, should be sent to the following electronic mailbox: email@example.com. Inquiries should be addressed to:
Sue Gambaccini and Gina M. Flores
1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 710
Washington, DC 20009
Director of Public Information
National Immigration Forum
Katherine Esau (1898–1997). a botanist, was born in Yekaterinoslav, Russian Empire (now Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine) to a family of Mennonites of German descent. After the Russian Revolution, her family moved to Germany, and then to California, where she earned her doctorate in 1931.
Esau was a pioneering plant anatomist, perhaps the greatest plant anatomist of the 20th century. Her books Plant Anatomy and Anatomy of Seed Plants have been key plant structural biology texts for the last four decades. She was the sixth woman elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1957, and in 1989 she was awarded the National Medal of Science. The Katherine Esau Award is awarded to the graduate student who presents the best paper in structural and developmental biology at the annual meeting of the Botanical Society of America.
Katherine Esau was a gifted lecturer and author as well as a brilliant scientist. A kind and modest person, she never married and led a life full of scientific achievements, which inspires female scientists all over the world. Esau died in 1997 in Santa Barbara.